Except in this analogy you have to spend time to find which corner store claims to have the soda you want and then pay 6 bucks just to enter the corner store. Once inside you have to spend more of your time trying to fix their fridge so your soda is cold. After you can't fix the fridge they give you your six bucks back on the way out. But your time costs are never compensated.

The problem faced by the original poster is that the corner store didn't have the soda available, cold and ready, but the spiv outside did.

The corner store lost nothing.

> So in a very real sense, stealing the soda and stealing the movie are hardly any different?

But again, stealing a soda voids the ability for someone else to obtain the good. "Stealing" a movie via piracy doesn't neglect someone else from obtain the good. This is the GP's point - stealing implies there is something of loss.

...only if they run out. Read my comment again.

I can't believe people are still equating copyright infringement with physical theft. Didn't that tired old argument die a long time ago ? If not, why not ?

One more time, boys and girls:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4